9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 1209 - HC - CustomsBenefit of incentives claimed pursuant to N/N. 43 (RE-2013)/ 2009-14 dated 25th September, 2013 - Held that - issue covered in the case of JSW Steel vs. Union of India & Ors. 2016 (1) TMI 957 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , where it was held that the 2013 Notification places no cap or restriction on the value of the IEIS scrip - the judgment in JSW Limited would also enure to the benefit of the present Writ Petition - petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Refusal of incentives claimed by Petitioners based on a specific notification. Analysis: The judgment by the High Court of Bombay addressed the issue of the Petitioners challenging the refusal of incentives claimed by them under a particular notification. The Court noted that a previous judgment in a related matter had considered the same notification and had observed that it would be covered by the judgment of the Division Bench in another case. The Court had disposed of the previous Writ Petition based on this consideration. In the current case, the Court adjourned the matter to allow the Respondents to demonstrate how the previous orders were inapplicable. Upon hearing the Respondent's Senior Counsel, the Court found that the judgment in JSW Limited would benefit the present Writ Petition, and the notification in question was also the subject matter in a previous Writ Petition. Consequently, the Court made the Rule absolute in line with the Division Bench's judgment in JSW Steel vs. Union of India & Ors. The Respondent was directed to comply within eight weeks without any costs. This judgment showcases the Court's adherence to precedent and the application of previous judgments to the current case. It highlights the importance of consistency and legal principles in deciding matters related to incentives claimed under specific notifications. The Court's decision to rely on the judgment in a related case demonstrates a systematic approach to resolving legal disputes and ensuring fairness in the application of laws and notifications. The clarity provided by the Court in adopting the same recourse as in the previous case adds to the predictability and stability of legal outcomes in similar situations.
|
